Decline...

Larry Gude

Strung Out
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

This history is relevant today because 65 percent of Americans believe their nation is now in decline, according to this week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. And it is true: Today’s economic problems are structural, not cyclical. We are in the middle of yet another jobless recovery. Wages have been lagging for decades. Our labor market woes are deep and intractable.

:popcorn:
 

Mongo53

New Member
I'd agree we are in a decline Culturally, Societies have turned around declines, so lets NOT get into a the U.S. will crumble from within discussion.

Economically? Well, there are structural problems and it came from massive intervention to try to insulate from the natural cyclical dips and NOT let the free market correct the cyclical dips itself, as well as pushing political agendas propped up with economic intervention from the government.

Some people also forget the world around us is progressing and evolving as well, especially economically, we either have to lead or get out of the way, because they will pass us up. So there has been structural changes or transformations in our economy over the years, some we don't like, but its necessary to compete and stay up with the rest of the globe. I state that, because some may see necessary structural changes in the economy as something bad, when in reality, whether we like it or NOT, it was necessary and the best thing in the long run.

IMO, Political reform is the key to correcting the structural problems in the economy, the structural problems that should NOT be there, NOT necessary transformation as a proper reaction to external forces.

Yea, throw the bums out, start paying attention to whats going on, demand that when Government has no right to be involved in a business, they get the heck out of the business. Of course you can't remove all Government involvement, nor would we want to, but we sure should get it back to far more moderate involvement then it is today.

40 years ago if people had started to scream, Government what the heck are you doing sticking your nose into this part of business, heck no you're NOT going to bail this out, heck no your NOT going to prop that up, darn right you're going to trim down those subsidies, Heck Yes your going to let the Market do its natural correction; if we had done that, 40 years later would be looking at the house of cards about to fall, with all the market correction hidden somewhere else in the economy coming due at once, and saying, well now we have to do an insanely huge bailout or we might have a deppression???

Whether you agreed with the 2008 bailouts or NOT, the question every should been asking was, HOW DID WE GET HERE AND HOW THE HECK DO WE PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
 

Mongo53

New Member
Personally, I’m not convinced we’re in decline. There are strengths to counter these weaknesses. But the value shifts are real. Up and down society, people are moving away from commercial, productive activities and toward pleasant, enlightened but less productive ones.

We can get distracted by short-term stimulus debates, but those are irrelevant by now. The real issues are whether the United States is content with gentility shift and whether there is anything that can be done about it in any case.
Marx postulated that Socialism would allow everyone to be Artists and Poets, choose how they could labor as they pleased.

Which did he ever answer the question; Who is going to collect the Garbage and Dig the Ditches?

Thats the problem, a more capitalistic society address the realities. I'm all for a Society that people are free to do as they please, I'm against a Society that subsidizes people to do as they please, funded by others that are trying to be more productive.

Like Europe, but to a lesser degree, we keep moving in that direction, and the economic reality is, we can't support it. There are consequences to actions, and if people have the consequences removed at the expense of others, the consequence is just shifted and builds up hidden under the rug, until, like the market corrections hidden under the rug, the bill comes due and it comes crashing done.

Marget Thatcher was more concise, "Socialism works great, until you run out of other people's money".

"The real issues are whether the United States is content with gentility shift and whether there is anything that can be done about it in any case."
Another way to say what the author said, The real issues ae whether the United States is content with becoming the next Greece and whether there is anything that can be done about it in any case.

Problem is, who can bail out the USA?
 

JoeRider

Federalist Live Forever
Marget Thatcher was more concise, "Socialism works great, until you run out of other people's money".

....
Problem is, who can bail out the USA?

Mongo, you are pretty scary. Your thinking is close to mine. I sure hope you don't end up being a wack job.

BTW, nobody has every really bail out the US. It is not in our blood because most of us do not see ourselves as victims and expect entitlements.
 

TurboK9

New Member
Mongo, you are pretty scary. Your thinking is close to mine. I sure hope you don't end up being a wack job.

BTW, nobody has every really bail out the US. It is not in our blood because most of us do not see ourselves as victims and expect entitlements.

:gossip: Most of us are not from New Orleans. :roflmao:
 

philibusters

Active Member
I predicted that over 3 years ago when Obama was running for President! :coffee:

I think you missed the point of the article. The artice was talking about how the economies problems are structural in nature (and therefore beyond Obama's policies of the last three years). Specifically the article says that we are structural weak in that we produce too many people in finance, lawyers, social workers, and humanity fields and not enough engineers, business people, and scientist to ensure economic growth in the future.

For example, a brilliant person with a very high IQ becomes a writer for a TV show. Maybe he eventually becomes a producer. Thats a field within the humanities. That person brings value to millions of poeple through entertaining programing, but they fail to contribute to long term economic growth the same way a brilliant business person (who improves means of production), scientist (through scientific discoveries that lead to new technologies), or engineer (who improves practical know how) do.
 

Mongo53

New Member
Mongo, you are pretty scary. Your thinking is close to mine. I sure hope you don't end up being a wack job.

BTW, nobody has every really bail out the US. It is not in our blood because most of us do not see ourselves as victims and expect entitlements.
Me, a Whack Job, thats a matter of perspective, in political theory probably NOT, but personal behaviour is a different story.

My point was, if we become the next Greece, who would bail us out. The European Union was able to do it for the little country of Greece, but a faultering US, who has the money to bail us out, if they wanted to. The rest of the world, although disliking us, might realize our economies are linked and a bailout would help us, but would they have the resources to do it. Although we should think positively, we would be arrogant to think it could never happen to us, we do need to reverse the trend and do it soon, Health Care takes root and Social Security Falters, we may be at the point of NO return. Or at least the point enough people in the country will be too cowed to sum up the fortitude to reverse it, they rather strike and riot like Greece and demand someone else fix it for them, no pain, all gain for them.
I think you missed the point of the article. The artice was talking about how the economies problems are structural in nature (and therefore beyond Obama's policies of the last three years). Specifically the article says that we are structural weak in that we produce too many people in finance, lawyers, social workers, and humanity fields and not enough engineers, business people, and scientist to ensure economic growth in the future.

For example, a brilliant person with a very high IQ becomes a writer for a TV show. Maybe he eventually becomes a producer. Thats a field within the humanities. That person brings value to millions of poeple through entertaining programing, but they fail to contribute to long term economic growth the same way a brilliant business person (who improves means of production), scientist (through scientific discoveries that lead to new technologies), or engineer (who improves practical know how) do.
The miracle of capitalism and free markets, that invisible guiding hand, as Smith put it. The market, if allowed to be unincumbered will determine what jobs are needed and people will respond to meet those jobs. It will be done without prejiduce, without an agenda, without bias, where there is a need, the market will highlight and produce a reward for those that will step up and meet the need.

Of course, the market will respond to and be guided by the will of the people, if we become self-centered, frivolous society, the market will serve that, as long as we can sustain ourselves with those attitudes.

Let capitalism work, the invisible guiding hand, without an agenda or bias, will restructure the economy and have it respond the most efficient way possible.

OR we can continue the arrogance and folly of thinking we can figure out the complex interaction and logistics of 300M people, and manipulate it according with centralized planning, as we waste resources slapping band-aids on massive problems, while we ignore even worse problems that don't fit our agenda. All the while constraining the markets, because we know if we let it go, it will correct all the folly up to know and it will be painful for the foolish, so we keep it at bay and only let the problem grow so the pain will be even worse when it can NOT be constrained anymore.
 
Last edited:

Kineticist

New Member
I think you missed the point of the article. The artice was talking about how the economies problems are structural in nature (and therefore beyond Obama's policies of the last three years). Specifically the article says that we are structural weak in that we produce too many people in finance, lawyers, social workers, and humanity fields and not enough engineers, business people, and scientist to ensure economic growth in the future.

For example, a brilliant person with a very high IQ becomes a writer for a TV show. Maybe he eventually becomes a producer. Thats a field within the humanities. That person brings value to millions of poeple through entertaining programing, but they fail to contribute to long term economic growth the same way a brilliant business person (who improves means of production), scientist (through scientific discoveries that lead to new technologies), or engineer (who improves practical know how) do.

Don't bother, you can't convince the hardcore conservatives on here that everything wrong with this country wasn't caused by Obama/Democrats/the international communist conspiracy. They live in their own world.
 

Mongo53

New Member
Don't bother, you can't convince the hardcore conservatives on here that everything wrong with this country wasn't caused by Obama/Democrats/the international communist conspiracy. They live in their own world.
:killingme Only a little Hyperbole?:cds:
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
I think you missed the point of the article. The artice was talking about how the economies problems are structural in nature (and therefore beyond Obama's policies of the last three years). Specifically the article says that we are structural weak in that we produce too many people in finance, lawyers, social workers, and humanity fields and not enough engineers, business people, and scientist to ensure economic growth in the future.

For example, a brilliant person with a very high IQ becomes a writer for a TV show. Maybe he eventually becomes a producer. Thats a field within the humanities. That person brings value to millions of poeple through entertaining programing, but they fail to contribute to long term economic growth the same way a brilliant business person (who improves means of production), scientist (through scientific discoveries that lead to new technologies), or engineer (who improves practical know how) do.

:buddies:
 
E

EmptyTimCup

Guest
My point was, if we become the next Greece, who would bail us out. The European Union was able to do it for the little country of Greece, but a faultering US, who has the money to bail us out, if they wanted to.



we become a 3rd rate European Client State .... lorded over by the UN


:whistle:
 

hvp05

Methodically disorganized
I'm against a Society that subsidizes people to do as they please, funded by others that are trying to be more productive.
You mean a society like the one pushed here?

Great points raised, BTW. :yay:



hardcore conservatives
And speaking from the category of Nothing to Contribute... :weakapplause:

Another example of a Lefty who sees anyone to the right of himself as a "hardcore conservative". Way to work towards marginalizing and quelling the opposition. :coffee:
 

ImnoMensa

New Member
Don't bother, you can't convince the hardcore conservatives on here that everything wrong with this country wasn't caused by Obama/Democrats/the international communist conspiracy. They live in their own world.

Oh: You mean like Obama and every liberal is trying to convince us
that everything wrong with the world is George Bush's fault??


Yes: Conservatives arent the only ones living in their own world.
 
Top